Nystrand, Greene and Wiemelt, or, For An Article I Started Out Hating, I'm Sure Citing It a Lot

Reading this article really made me reflect on my myself as a reader.  When I first attempted to read this article, it was the first week of class.  I hadn't had the priviledge of hearing Dr. Kist speak about the different eras of English education or the predominent forms of critical theory used to interpret literature.  I literally had, "nothing in my suitcase," to quote on of the teachers I interviewed on the teaching of inference; in other words, I had NO background knowledge on this topic.  Since my first attempt at reading this article I've read all of the chapters in The Handbook of Research on Writing as well as my chapter on New Criticism in the Tyson book.  It is as if I am reading a different article.  The text seems much more conversational (though not nearly as much as Tyson) and I'm less angry at the authors for being verbose and (in my opinion) needlessly name dropping -isms!  I wish every social studies and science teacher in the world could keep this principle in mind.  How often was I assigned to read a chapter say, on the French and Indian War or imperialism before the class discussion?  Often!  How much deeper would my reading have been if I'd been given a 1-5 minute preview/ highlights/ chapter walk before the assignment?